This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles
Is there any reason that the pictures in this list need to be so large? I can understand making the map in the infobox this large, but why 240px in a table? The usual size for most NRHP lists is 100px.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time that I've ever added a table to a historic district article. I've done many, but I usually prefer to simply add a link to the Commons category. However, I set this table up for Cougar6 in his workspace, since he has no experience with tables. He had initially started creating articles for the contributing properties, but I suggested a table on the main historic district article instead. He wanted something that would allow him to add the history and/or architecture of each structure. I initially had the parameters set up with our usual 100px size, but he enlarged them. When I moved it here, I downsized them a little as a compromise. Even though its certainly true that we embed our NRHP lists with 100px images, those normally link to actual articles with larger photos. These (except for the first one) do not, their entry in the table is it. Cougar6's not finished yet, but I'm hoping for some additional sources too. Altairisfar (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand now. I still don't agree with the size of the pictures, though. Take Detroit Financial District for example. Though some properties have separate articles, not all of them do. The ones that don't have articles only have that small picture beside the section title. If anyone wants to enlarge the photo, they can click on the picture; the main point of that article is the text describing the buildings. In the same way, the main focus of this list-article should not be these pictures but the text about each of the buildings.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, I've downsized them to 150px and must admit that the page looks much better. Altairisfar (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
